Legal Opinion

Maryland Casualty Co. v. Peek

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided March 5, 1927No. 17225PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtStephens, J.

(After stating the foregoing facts.) It appears conclusively, from the evidence, that the shooting of Peek did not grow or arise out of his employment. The assault upon him had no connection whatever with his employment. The risk of being exposed to an unprovoked assault by one seemingly insane was not a risk peculiarly incident to Peek’s employment. All persons, whether in an employment similar to that of Peek or in any other employment, are subject to such a risk anywhere in the company of others. We adopt the legal conclusions expressed in the opinion of lion. R. C. Norman of the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. McNicol's CaseMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1913
  2. New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. SumrellCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1923
  3. Archibald v. Workmen's Compensation CommissionerWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1916
  4. Georgia Casualty Co. v. MartinSupreme Court of Georgia · 1924
  5. Conaway v. Marine Oil Co.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1926

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Globe Indemnity Co. v. MacKendreeCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1928
  2. National Fire Insurance Company v. EdwardsCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1979
  3. Fried v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1941
  4. Railway Express Agency Inc. v. ShuttleworthCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1940
  5. Borden Foods Company v. DorseyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1965

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API